They tell people to be tolerant, and not to judge anyone. Then they turn around and portray everyone who is believed to be dominant subcultures in our over-all culture as tyrants, war mongers, and bigots.
They tell everyone to have diversity in the way of their opinions and to question all authority. What they mean is that it's ok to question the powers that be who are in positions of authority at this time. Doing that takes away their credibility, and by doing that it empowers the weasels in the media and Hollywood to brainwash the masses with their pathetic attempt at reconstructionism in our society. Also, by doing this they are getting to play God, after all, this IS what they want. They want to make God obselete in the grand scheme of things. The idea of God means that something out there would be greater than them. God ordains all authority, and by mocking that authority they think they can have the power themselves by reversing the roles through social reconstruction.
2006-09-23 21:59:17 · 8 answers · asked by McReynolds 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
They want us all to conform and be subordinate to them because they think they are the enlightened ones in our society. Oh yeah, they want you to question authority as long you don't question their assumed, self ordained authority. The media and the Hollywood types have destroyed the public's image of America and it's leaders. They are the enemy within. They are jealous of the power that our leaders have and they want it for themselves. They preach about the first amendment, but none of them would even have the balls to fight for the right to keep that freedom. I know our leaders aren't perfect, but they're better than Chavez from Venezuela and Amanneedingablowjob from Iran. They aren't perfect, but they're also not nearly the demons that the media and the Hollywood America haters portray them to be. If we fall as a nation much of the blood will be on their hands for encouraging and embolding our enemies. At least they TRY to protect us, unlike the Clinton administration did.
2006-09-23 22:11:07 · update #1
Yeah, you're right Scott. Instead of simply reporting an unbiased account of what really happens, today's media tries to rewrite what happens to their own liking.
2006-09-23 22:23:24 · update #2
I know the media doesn't lose credibility. I was saying that the media is out to make the ones who are in authority lose credibility.
2006-09-23 22:46:48 · update #3
Aussie *****, don't hate us because we're beautiful, lmao.
2006-09-23 22:59:04 · update #4
That was supposed to be Aussie b-i-t-c-h.
2006-09-23 23:00:01 · update #5
That was supposed to be Aussie b-i-t-c-h.
2006-09-23 23:01:16 · update #6
Even the sports media is this way. Any player who doesn't kiss their behinds in an interview, they try to ruin him. They want people to make them feel more important and to give them more influence than they deserve. Face it, they're all weasels who fabricate stories and spin things anyway they choose to until it sounds and appears exactly the way they want it to, instead of just giving an unbiased account. They're all power hungry and they're jealous of anyone who has what they want.
2006-09-24 06:19:07 · update #7
OOPS, I accidentally gave you a positive rating, Paul H. I meant to give you a thumbs down instead.
2006-09-24 06:22:22 · update #8
well said, its my 'opinion' that people who are weak of character have to look to other means to influence those around them. if their own history and record isnt enough to give them the power they seek then they have to try other ways. in addition, some people are too arrogant to think that they could have anything to do with their own failure, so they must create a history(rewrite, if you will) that they can live with.
2006-09-23 22:16:19 · answer #1 · answered by scottlcdl 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Rule #1: NEVER presume to speak for the opinions of others, liberal or conservative, because when you ask them what they actually think, they will probably surprise you. Should we be tolerant? Sure - but only to a limited extent - I am not "tolerant" of religious fanatics flying airplanes into skyscrapers. I do not portray anyone as a warmonger, tyrant, or bigots unless they actually deserve that title. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant.
I do NOT tell EVERYONE to question all authority - need brain surgery? You should consult an authority! Questioning the decisions of people in authority is a GOOD thing - it would have prevented the Titanic and the Challenger disasters. Being in authority does NOT automatically make you right.
Hollywood is a LOT more conservative than you think. It is "owned" by people that are VERY wealthy and when people are wealthy they want to CONSERVE their wealth, and are often quite conservative - Charleton Heston was in Hollywood too - remember? This BS about the "liberal media" is just that - BS. The media is also owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, who is extremely conservative. Media empires cost a fortune, so the people who own them are very wealthy, and as such want to CONSERVE that wealth.
You don't lose credibility by telling people to question authority - you GAIN credibility. The Catholic Church did not acknowledge that Galileo was right for 400 years - was the Catholic Church right because it was an "authority"? Of course not!
No one has the power to reconstruct our society - only influence the changes, but that goes back and forth between conservative and liberal and it should because the free flowing exchange of ideas advances a civilization.
As to "playing God", you've got to be kidding - any body that so much as thinks that they would be capable of even imitating a tiny bit of the power of what people call "God" is foolhardy. As far as believing that there is no God, I did have to redefine what I meant by "God" - the natural universe, and not some nonsensical supernatural being. And if God ordains all authority, then why did Saddam Hussein get deposed? I don't think I'm "bigger than God", but I do THINK and please don't tell me what I think because it only shows that you don't have a clue as to what my opinion really is. BTW: I consider myself a moderate.
2006-09-24 05:25:28 · answer #2 · answered by Paul H 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're entitled to your opinion, and for my part I am not hostile to your point of view. I agree with you that everyone should be given an equal hearing. I don't agree with you that in a pluralistic, secular and democratic society that "God ordains all authority." In such a society, even atheists have a right to a equal hearing, and atheists could never agree to that. In fact, in the past it was said of democracies that "vox populi vox dei," and this was a value which could be adhered to by both theists and non-theists. I would suggest that this concept is more important now than ever before. Whether or not a divinity becomes "obsolete in the grand scheme of things" is not something that can be decided by any one group - on either side of the debate. As far as "social reconstruction" goes, I would argue that this is the business of all societies, including those that are founded on a theistic base. In fact if you look honestly at your own question, I think that you'll find that you are putting forward a point of view that is advocating the type of "social reconstruction" that you personally favour.
2006-09-24 05:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by Sincere Questioner 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
where are the fire works your soapbox is trying but it needs yrs of work great attempt but a dud... good luck in the future!
it's corrupt beyond recognition justice tempered with mercy they said and then we turn it into a system of revenge without forgiveness or a chance for rehabilitation... so I think it starts here with the mass of citizens casting of responsibility for self righteous ignorance and emotionalism. Many are easily fooled like the sheeps to slaughter. power corruption and monetary dominance don't even have to deal with god .... the religious opiated complaisant don't fight anything what is needed is large masses of well informed honest people of integrity that will fight the evil domination of the oppressive wealthy for the freedom and spirit that they die for and never receive ....maybe you will help lead them from the blind deaf and dumb path of today!
2006-09-24 05:17:49 · answer #4 · answered by dogpatch USA 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My beef is with Christians that don't follow what Jesus said. Nearly every single Christian in the United States is truly rich although some would not think of themselves as rich. They must not want to go to heaven because they sure don't share their wealth with the truly poor of other countries. To me it is an insult to Christ's teaching to throw away food when little kids elsewhere are dying of hunger.
2006-09-24 05:04:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
yes and this question requires a powerful quote from a republican.................. * People that are very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history"...-GWB
regarding this from your profile;
"I despise today's double standards, where it's bad to hate anyone except for white people, so called "fat" people, Christians, men, conservatives, and Americans."
i thought Fat and American were one and the same?????
2006-09-24 05:26:01 · answer #6 · answered by Aussieblonde -bundy'd 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because conservatives ask stupid, vague, long-winded questions like this.
2006-09-24 05:21:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
opinions are like bungholes, every body has 1 & they all stink
2006-09-24 05:01:41 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋